The Ashokraj Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary Co-Operative Dep.

CNR No : HCBM020302502026

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 30249 OF 2026
1. The Ashokraj Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
a Society registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960,
having its registered office at – Ashokraj,
Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West),
Mumbai – 400104. …Petitioner
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT
RAMDAS
GHUGE
Date:
2026.11.03
18:05:08
+0530
ROHIT
RAMDAS
GHUGE
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary Co-operative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
Through Government Pleader, High Court,
OS, Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Registrar,
P/South Ward, Mumbai,
having office at 303, BMC Godown Building,
Sanskruti, 90 Feet Road, Thakur Complex,
Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400101.
3. Sunil Lahu Khochare,
Age: Not Known, Occu. Advocate
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
having address at B/604, Rajeshwar Sahakar
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
J.V. Link Road, Opp. Shyam Nagar Talao,
Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai – 400060.
4. Kusumanjali Constructions Private Limited,
a Company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act,
Having its office at 702, Snehdeep pahadi Road No.2,
M.P. Gajanan Kirtikar Building, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400063. …Respondents
1/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc

*
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Nirav Karia i/by Mr. Bhavin Bhatia and
Ms. Krutisha Pandey for Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Helekar, G.P. a/w Ms. Fatima Lakdawala, A.G.P. – for the
Respondent- State.
Ms. Sujata K. Popalkar, for Respondent No. 3.
Mr. Bajrang Jadhav, Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Societies, P-ward,
Mumbai having office at Kandivali (East).
*

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
st
DATE : 21 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Ashish S. Chavan J.] :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the
consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioner, a Co-operative Housing Society has
invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash and set aside
notice dated 04.08.2026 and order dated 05.05.2026
(“cumulatively referred to as impugned notices”) issued by the
second Respondent, Deputy Registrar P/South Ward, Mumbai. It is
the case of the Petitioner that the impugned notices are ex facie
arbitrary, unreasonable and in excess of the jurisdiction vested in
the second Respondent apart from being malafide in nature.
2/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
3. Heard Mr. Singh for the Petitioner, Ms. Helekar, G.P. for
Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Popalkar, for the Respondent No.3.
4. The case put forth by the Petitioner is that it was undergoing
re-development and had appointed Respondent No. 4 as the
developer. On 15.03.2026 the Petitioner-Society held a special
general body meeting wherein it was decided to revoke the
appointment of the developer and accordingly vide letter dated
th
April 6 2026 the Petitioner Society revoked the appointment of
Respondent No. 4 as the developer.
Ld. counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to a
rd
complaint dated 23 April, 2026 addressed by the ousted developer
to the second Respondent, Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society,
wherein, the developer had complained against the revocation of his
appointment by the Petitioner. The complaint sought an inquiry into
th
the special general body meeting held by the Petitioner on 15
March, 2026 and called upon the Respondent no. 2 to stay the
termination notice, and summon the original records of the society
including the Minutes Book, Attendance Register and Video
Recording of the Special General Body Meeting.
3/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
The Petitioner thereafter received a communication from
Respondent No. 3 informing them that Respondent No. 3 was
appointed as the inspection officer under Section 89A of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (“MCS Act”) and
that he would visit the office of the Petitioner Society to inspect the
documents of the Society. Although, the Petitioner society was not
aware of the impugned order 05.05.2026, it was annexed along
with the aforesaid communication of Respondent No. 3.
5. On behalf of the Petitioner it was further submitted that,
upon receipt of the aforesaid communication from Respondent No.
3, Petitioner co-operated with the statutory authority and made
available for inspection the relevant records, resolutions, minutes of
meeting and other documents available with the Society. However,
the Petitioner contends that the Respondent No. 3 was insistent
upon conducting a fishing inquiry and insisted upon the production
of video footage/ recording of the special general body meeting of
the petitioner society held on 15.03.2026. The Ld. counsel for the
Petitioner has taken us through a communication dated 15.06.2026
addressed by Respondent No. 3 which specifically requisitions the
video recording of 15.03.2026. The Petitioner has also invited our
4/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
attention to the order dated 04.08.2026 issued by Respondent No.2
which states that, since the Petitioner society has not heeded to the
notice under Section 89A of MCS Act despite repeated
communications, Respondent No. 2 has invoked its power under
Section 80 of the said Act to seize the books and records of the
Petitioner Society and directed the police authorities to execute the
same. Aggrieved by this action of the Respondent No. 2 which as
per the contention of the Petitioner exceeds its jurisdiction apart
from being malafide and arbitrary has necessitated the present
Petition.
6. By our previous orders we had called upon Respondent
No. 2 and 3 to file their responses, more particularly qua the
allegations of the Petitioner Society that the Respondent No. 2 has
acted in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 89A of the MCS Act.
In compliance thereto, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed
respective affidavits in reply. We were surprised to note that the
reply affidavit of Respondent No. 3 relies on an inspection report
dated 22.06.2026 which mentions that the video recording of the
special general body meeting of the Petitioner society which was
held on 15.03.2026 was called for from the Petitioner Society, on
5/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
the basis of a complaint by a member of the society who had
requested that his identity be kept ‘ anonymous ’. This stand of
Respondent No. 3 is opposite to the stand taken by the Respondent
No. 2 in its affidavit filed before us. The Respondent No. 2 has
emphatically denied that the action against the Petitioner Society
under Section 89A of MCS Act is not based on any complaint and
in its affidavit notes that the Respondent No. 2 does not have any
authority to take cognizance of any private complaint of a third
party.
This stark contrast between the stands taken upon by
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 clearly reveals their contrary positions,
more so when Respondent No. 3 is an inspection officer appointed
by Respondent No. 2.
7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to set out Section
89A of the MCS Act which is reproduced herein under:
“ 89A. Power to inspect working of society.—
(1) It shall be competent for the Registrar to inspect or cause to
be inspected the working of any society to ensure that-
(a) the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws of the
society are being properly followed by the society;
(b) the records and books of accounts are kept in proper
forms;
(c) overall view is taken to ensure that the business of the
society is being run on sound business principles and
under professional and efficient management;
6/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
(d) the society is following the co-operative principles and
the directives or directions given by the State
Government in accordance with the provisions of this
Act and the rules made thereunder :
(e) the returns as provided by section 79 are submitted to
the Registrar regularly and properly.
(2) For the purpose of supervision over the societies, the
Registrar shall have the power-
(a) to inspect the records and books of accounts of the
society and for that purpose he shall have, at all times,
access to all the records and books of accounts of the
society; and
(b) to summon any officer or employee who has the
custody of the records or books of accounts of the
society to produce them before him.
(3) The State Government may levy supervision fees on any
society or class of societies at such rates, as the State
Government may, having regard to the area of operation, the
nature of business and the objects of the society, by notification
in the Official Gazette, fix from time to time.
(4) Every society liable to pay the fees levied under sub-section
(3) shall pay such fees by such date and in such manner as the
State Government may specify in the notification issued under
sub-section (3).
(5) The State Government may having regard to the financial
position of any society or class of societies by general or special
order published in the Official Gazette exempt such society or
class of societies from payment of such fees for such period as
may be specified in such order, or reduce or remit in whole or
in part such fees.”
From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that
the Registrar has been vested with the supervisory power to inspect
working of any society to ensure that the provisions of the Act, its
7/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
rules and bye-laws are being followed by the Society, the records
and books of accounts are kept in proper manner and the business
of the society is run on sound business principles. For this purpose
the Registrar has the power to inspect the records and books of
accounts etc., and to summon any officer or employee of the society
who has custody of the records. It is evident from the language of
the provision that the power under Section 89A is a supervisory
power which is vested in the Registrar to ensure there is smooth
working of the society in consonance with the MCS Act.
8. Ld. Government Pleader Ms. Helekar placed reliance on
the affidavits of Respondent nos. 2 and 3 arguing that the
Respondent No. 2 has acted within his jurisdiction as set out by
Section 89A of the MCS Act. She submitted that the affidavit of
Respondent No. 2 clarifies that the impugned order under Section
89A is not issued on the basis of any private or third party
complaint and the allegations of malafide by the Petitioner Society
are erroneous and ought to be rejected.
8/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
9. In the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions what falls
for consideration before us is whether the exercise conducted by
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was within their jurisdiction and authority
under Section 89A of the MCS Act.
rd
In this context we have noted the complaint dated 23 April
2026 by the Respondent No. 4, the ousted developer to Respondent
No. 2, the Deputy Registrar seeking action against the termination
of its development agreement by the Petitioner Society. The notice
amongst other things seeks to requisition the video recording of the
special general body meeting of Petitioner Society dated
15.03.2026.
Adverting to the reply of Respondent No. 3 who has been
authorized by the Respondent No. 2 as an inspection officer to
conduct the fact finding exercise contemplated under Section 89A
of the MCS Act, we find that the inspection report of the
Respondent No. 3 clearly mentions that the said exercise has been
initiated taking cognizance of a complaint received by the
Respondent No. 2 from an ‘ anonymous’ complainant. When we
called upon the Ld. counsel for Respondent No. 3 to produce the
‘ anonymous ’ complaint we have received no satisfactory reply.
Suffice it to say, that no such complaint was placed on record either
9/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
by Respondent No. 3 or by Respondent No.2. It is surprising to see
that Respondent No. 2 has distanced himself from this fact in his
affidavit by stating that the exercise under Section 89A was not
based on any complaint. Even upon repeated queries, neither the
Ld. Government Pleader representing Respondent No. 2 nor the
counsel for Respondent No. 3 has given any plausible answer as to
why the video recording of the special general body meeting of the
Petitioner Society conducted on 15.03.2026 is of such a crucial
importance to the Respondent No. 2.
10. Although there is no dispute about the authority and
extent of powers vested in Respondent No. 2 in its supervisory
capacity to inspect the working of the society as contemplated
under Section 89A of the MCS Act, it need not be emphasized that
such authority and power must be exercised by the Respondent no.
2, a statutory authority, in a bonafide manner and in consonance
with the objective of Section 89A of MCS Act. In the present facts
by their own showing, the exercise conducted by the Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 clearly appears to be based on some ‘ anonymous ’
complaint and seems to be specifically directed at procuring the
video footage of the special general body meeting in which the
10/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30

WP(L).30249-2026.doc
Respondent No. 4 was ousted and his appointment as a developer
was revoked/terminated. This in our view is clearly an overreach by
the Respondent No. 2 of his jurisdiction under Section 89A of the
MCS Act and cannot be countenanced.
Consequently, in the wake of the aforesaid discussion,
we quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 04.08.2026 in so
far as it relates to the production of the audio/video recording of the
special general body meeting of the Petitioner Society held on
15.03.2026. We clarify that Respondent No. 2 is otherwise at
liberty to proceed in their exercise under Section 89A of the MCS
Act, strictly in accordance with law.
The Petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
11/11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:23:30
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)